Marriage in America will soon mean anything (and thus nothing), just as several justices of the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in their dissents of the June "gay marriage" decree.
The all-too-common news includes a homosexual couple who divorced so that they could jointly marry a third man; they have plans to produce three children.
The courts are ready, and the litigants are lined up.
“If we would have been having this conversation 10 years ago, I’d be a lot more nervous about having it at all. But today, it feels like the tide is shifting toward accepting people for who and what they are. I may be grossly naïve but that seems to be where they’re going.” -- Jason (in a polyamorous union)
For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:
Canadians Adam Grant and Shayne Curran were married in 2011. But last year, they got divorced – as a sign of their love for Sebastian Tran.
The pair then met Tran at a nightclub in September of 2012 and struck up a conversation. They hit it off so well, that the three spent the entire evening at home together.
Two months later, the trio moved in together in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Will “polyamorous relationships” someday become legal in America? This summer’s decision legalizing gay marriage leaves that possibility open. . . .
The threesome, who all work in the medical profession, hope to conceive three children together with the help of Shayne's sister as a surrogate - whilst Seb's sister will donate her eggs.
The trio have been living together for over three years now and are happier than ever.
And they hope to marry in the not too distant future.
The trio hope to show that polyamory is a perfectly acceptable choice of life and love.
The threesome insist their relationship is like any normal couple's . . .
It is difficult to determine the actual number of people in such relationships because of a lack of research, but they are becoming more visible because of the Internet and social media, according to psychologist Meg Manthos, whose clientele is about 30 percent poly groups.
And according to a national Avvo.com study from June 2015, about 4 percent of the U.S. population admits to being in an open relationship, which amounts to about 12.8 million people, or roughly three times the population of Kentucky.
Elisabeth Sheff, author of the book “The Polyamorists Next Door,” said the key to making polyamory work is communication.
She wrote in a Psychology Today story that polyamorous people “put a lot of emphasis on communication as a way to build intimacy, explore boundaries, negotiate agreements, and share feelings.”
To read the entire article above (including myriad sordid details), CLICK HERE.
[Jasper Wirtshafter] started dating a man who brought up the idea of polyamory first. Wirtshafter began dating polyamorously throughout college, and after attending Beyond the Love, a polyamory convention in Columbus in November 2013, he was inspired to start a chapter — Athens Poly.
Although many of the people that come to Athens Poly events also identify as LGBT, Wirtshafter said the majority of the people at Beyond the Love were couples or triples, middle-aged, and mostly heterosexual.
One of the biggest misconceptions about polyamory is that it’s an excuse to be unfaithful or have an affair, Delfin Bautista, director of the LGBT Center, said. Sarah Jenkins, program coordinator for the Women’s Center, said . . . Polyamory focuses more on equality, rather than control, in the multiple relationships . . .
Officials in Yellowstone County are reviewing a marriage application for Nathan Collier to marry Christine, with whom he's been living -- along with his 15-year-wife, Victoria.
“I’m not trying to redefine marriage. I’m not forcing anyone to believe in polygamy. We’re only defining marriage for us. We just want legitimacy. . . . We're not even asking for acceptance, we're just asking for tolerance. Let us live our lives together without fear. . . . It's about marriage equality. You can't have this without polygamy.” -- Nathan Collier
For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:
The Montana trio argue that under Friday’s landmark Supreme Court decision recognizing same-sex marriage across the country as legal, their polygamous relationship should be legally recognized and guaranteed the same rights as heterosexual and homosexual marriages. “If you read the justice’s statement, it applies to polygamists,” Collier said.
He’s referring to the dissent by Chief Justice John Roberts, who argued that the reasoning for giving same-sex couples the right to marry “would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.”
Spurred by Roberts’ words, the three decided to go to the courthouse Tuesday armed with the Supreme Court ruling. County clerks initially denied to give a marriage license upon learning that Collier’s marriage with Victoria had not been dissolved. But the clerk returned afterwards, saying that they would refer to the county attorney’s office before making a decision. The county’s chief civil litigator is looking to have a formal response by early next week:
Collier met both of his wives in 1999. He married Victoria in 2000 and had a spiritual ceremony with Christine, he said. Collier now wants to legalize his marriage to both of them, he said.
Collier, 46, said that [Chief Justice John Roberts'] dissent inspired him. He owns a refrigeration business in Billings . . .
Collier said he is a former Mormon who was excommunicated for polygamy and now belongs to no religious organization. He said he and his wives hid their relationship for years, but became tired of hiding and went public by appearing on the reality cable television show "Sister Wives."
The three have seven children of their own and from previous relationships.
"It's two distinct marriages, its two distinct unions, and for us to come together and create family, what's wrong with that?" said Christine. "I don't understand why it's looked upon and frowned upon as being obscene."
Collier said he sent an email asking the ACLU of Montana to represent him in a possible lawsuit. ACLU legal director Jim Taylor said he has not seen the request.
A pair of lesbians and their common male lover of Oakland, California who were "married" as a "poly fidelitous triad" last summer say that society needs to accept their definition of family because “in all honesty we think having two moms and one dad is the perfect way to raise a child, in a home full of love,” said Melinda Phoenix—lesbian, mother, and wife (of both a woman and a man).
“Even sex is great as if one person is not feeling up for it, then there are two other people to choose from.”
Of course, having three parents in one bedroom does present some unique challenges. “We just need a bigger bed,” Dani [Phoenix] said. “We are all co-sleeping with the babies as well and at the moment the only way Jonathan [Stein] fits is if he lays horizontally at the bottom of the bed.”
For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:
Melinda and Dani Phoenix became domestic partners in a 2010 California commitment ceremony, before gay marriage was legal in the state. A year later, the pair fell in love with a man, Jonathan Stein, and added him to their union in an unofficial marriage ceremony in 2014. Now Melinda and Dani are a polyamorous couple — both wives consider Jonathan their husband — and all three are in a romantic relationship.
Recently, the Oakland trio got two new additions to their family. In September 2014, Melinda gave birth to a son, Oliver, and one month later, Dani had a daughter, Ella Lynn; Jonathan is the father of each. “We just made sure we timed things correctly and prayed our wishes would come true,” Melinda said. “I found out I was pregnant on January 14th … and two weeks later we all let out a scream of pure delight when we found out Dani was expecting, too. It was just so special experiencing pregnancy with the woman I love going through it at the same time.”
Today, all three consider themselves parents to both Ella Lynn and Oliver.
Jonathan, Dani, and Melinda are a polyamorous family, which means that they all believe in having more than one partner.
The trio and their two children all live under the same roof, with all three parents sharing every aspect of parenthood, from nighttime feeds to diaper changes.
'It might seem strange to a lot of people, but to us it makes perfect sense,' Melinda, 28, who runs her own healing company, East-West Collaborative Health, told Daily Mail Online. 'We all love each other and it was our dream to fall pregnant at the same time.'
Until Dani met Melinda in 2008, Melinda had only been in monogamous relationships with men, while Dani had enjoyed relationships with both men and women.
'When Melinda first told me she was missing a man in her life I thought "Why aren't I enough?"' Dani confessed. 'But the more we spoke about it, the more I realized there could be huge advantages to having three of us in our marriage.
'The hard part was finding a man we could both fall in love with.'
Miraculously the girls didn't have to wait too long for their dream husband to come along.
. . . they’re sharing their story to raise awareness about polyamorous families and hope that some day these arrangements can be widely accepted and legally recognized. With children entering their picture, they feel gaining support from the community is more important than ever.
Polyamory is a term used to define people who love multiple partners at the same time. A polyamorous relationship can range from a married person with multiple love interests to an informal group marriage. Some engage in group sex while others have one-on-one sexual relationships with multiple partners.
Polygamy falls under the polyamory umbrella and refers to a structure with one man who dominates over two or more wives. In a polygamous relationship the wives don’t have an intimate relationship. The Stein-Phoenix clan is different because Melinda and Dani are romantically involved and all three partners are viewed as equals.
A 2009 Newsweek article reported that more than a half-million people prefer a more populous relationship over the traditional two-person one, but some researchers say the numbers could be much higher due to underreporting.
Setting up a path to the Supreme Court concerning same-sex "marriage," United States District Judge Juan Perez-Gimenez, who was appointed by President Carter in 1979, ruled that voters of each state (a.k.a. We the People) have the right to define marriage because past U.S. Supreme Court rulings have confirmed this constitutional right.
[The judge] dismissed a challenge to Puerto Rico’s law limiting marriage to one man and one woman. He concluded the outcome was controlled by the Supreme Court’s summary rejection of same-sex marriage claims in Baker v. Nelson in 1972 . . .
The decision does two important things, in addition to denying marriage to same-sex couples in Puerto Rico. First, it puts the First Circuit back in play in the national litigation, although every state in the [New England] circuit already recognizes same-sex marriage. A panel of that court suggested that Baker did indeed bar same-sex marriage constitutional claims in its decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act in 2012. . . .
Second, the issue of Baker‘s effect is actively being considered in other circuits. Most immediately, the Sixth Circuit is already considering a case that turns in part on whether Baker controls. In the Eighth Circuit, a motion to dismiss a same-sex marriage challenge was argued in a South Dakota district court last Friday. (The challenge was brought by my former student Joshua Newville.) And the Fifth Circuit will soon schedule argument in Texas’s appeal from a district court decision striking down that state’s limitation on marriage.
A federal court judge has rejected an attempt to end a ban on same-sex marriages in Puerto Rico, saying political order itself depends on traditional marriage and deriding the logic of courts that have overturned such bans. The five gay couples who filed the suit will appeal, their attorney said Wednesday.
The couples had challenged the constitutionality of several local laws, including a 1902 code that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Perez-Gimenez questioned the actions of more than two dozen judges on the U.S. mainland who have struck down state same-sex marriage bans following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as U.S. vs. Windsor. That ruling struck down a federal provision that denied several tax, health and veterans benefits to legally married gay couples, though it did not declare gay marriage legal nationwide.
Perez-Gimenez wondered in his ruling whether laws prohibiting polygamy and incestuous relations will be questioned now, saying that traditional marriage is essential to society itself.
The President Jimmy Carter-appointed judge argued that it was not his place to legislate social policy from the bench.
The Puerto Rico legislature passed a definition of marriage that called it “a civil contract whereby a man and a woman mutually agree to become husband and wife.” It was signed into law in 1999.
Lambda Legal filed the case—now probably destined for the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It represents LGBT advocacy group Puerto Rico Para Todos and five couples—two seeking to marry in the commonwealth, three seeking to have their U.S. mainland marriages recognized by the commonwealth.
Relying mainly on two legal points that federal courts have repeatedly rejected over the past sixteen months, a federal trial judge in San Juan ruled Tuesday that Puerto Rico’s ban on same-sex marriage survives constitutional challenge. . . .
Judge Perez-Gimenez focused the first part of his constitutional analysis on the Supreme Court’s summary ruling in Baker v. Nelson forty-two years ago. In that case, the Court dismissed a gay couple’s appeal seeking a right to marry because, it said, the case did not raise “a substantial federal question.” That left intact a Minnesota Supreme Court decision in favor of that state’s ban on same-sex unions.
The San Juan jurist said the Supreme Court has never overruled that decision, so it is still binding on lower federal courts . . .
In his 21-page decision, Judge Juan Perez-Gimenez passionately defended true marriage and delivered a scathing rebuke to his colleagues across the nation who have overwhelmingly ruled to overturn state bans on same-sex “marriage” in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial 2013 [United States v. Windsor] ruling striking down key portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
In his ruling, Judge Perez-Gimenez acknowledged he is in the minority of judges willing to defend true marriage. But he had harsh words for the activist courts that have now redefined marriage to include same-sex couples in 32 states.
Shortly after Puerto Rico became an unincorporated insular territory of the United States . . . was the enactment of the Civil Code of 1902, which included Article 129:
Marriage is a civil institution that emanates from a civil contract by virtue of which a man and a woman are mutually obligated to be husband and wife, and to fulfill for one another all the duties that the law imposes. It will be valid only when it is celebrated and solemnized in accordance with such provisions of law and may only be dissolved before the death of any of the spouses in those instances expressly provided for in this Code.
. . . A revised Code was approved in 1930 that incorporated the 1902 code’s definition of marriage . . . Two amendments were later added but the Code’s original definition of marriage as between “a man and a woman” did not change. This long-standing definition, stretching across two distinct legal traditions, rules out animus as the primary motivation behind Puerto Rico’s marriage laws.
From the time Puerto Rico became a possession of the United States its marriage laws have had the same consistent policy . . . marriage is between one man and one woman. For that reason, Puerto Rico’s marriage policy is neither unclear nor unsettled.
. . . The plaintiffs have brought this challenge alleging a violation of the federal constitution, so the first place to begin is with the text of the Constitution. The text of the Constitution, however, does not directly guarantee a right to same-gender marriage, for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.”
. . . the First Circuit has spared us from the misapprehension that has plagued our sister courts. The First Circuit expressly acknowledged – a mere two years ago – that [the Supreme Court decision of] Baker remains binding precedent “unless repudiated by subsequent Supreme Court precedent.” . . . According to the First Circuit, Baker prevents the adoption of arguments that “presume or rest on a constitution al right to same-sex marriage.” Even creating “a new suspect classification for same-sex relationships” would “imply[ ] an overruling of Baker,” – relief that the First Circuit acknowledged is beyond a lower court’s power to grant. This Court agrees, and even if this Court disagreed, the First Circuit’s decision would tie this Court’s hands no less surely than Baker ties the First Circuit’s hands.
. . . The [2013 Supreme Court] Windsor opinion did not create a fundamental right to same-gender marriage nor did it establish that state opposite-gender marriage regulations are amenable to federal constitutional challenges. If anything, Windsor stands for the opposite proposition: it reaffirms the States’ authority over marriage, buttressing Baker’s conclusion that marriage is simply not a federal question. . . . Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, Windsor does not overturn Baker; rather, Windsor and Baker work in tandem to emphasize the States’ “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation” free from “federal intrusion.” . . . It takes inexplicable contortions of the mind or perhaps even willful ignorance – this Court does not venture an answer here – to interpret Windsor’s endorsement of the state control of marriage as eliminating the state control of marriage.
. . . Baker, which necessarily decided that a state law defining marriage as a union between a man and woman does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, remains good law. Because no right to same-gender marriage emanates from the Constitution, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico should not be compelled to recognize such unions. Instead, Puerto Rico, acting through its legislature, remains free to shape its own marriage policy. In a system of limited constitutional self-government such as ours, this is the prudent outcome. The people and their elected representatives should debate the wisdom of redefining marriage. Judges should not.
CONCLUSION
That this Court reaches its decision by embracing precedent may prove disappointing. But the role of precedent in our system of adjudication is not simply a matter of binding all succeeding generations to the decision that is first in time. Instead, stare decisis embodies continuity, certainly, but also limitation: there are some principles of logic and law that cannot be forgotten.
Recent affirmances of same-gender marriage seem to suffer from a peculiar inability to recall the principles embodied in existing marriage law. Traditional marriage is “exclusively [an] opposite-sex institution . . . inextricably linked to procreation and biological kinship,” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2718 (Alito, J., dissenting). Traditional marriage is the fundamental unit of the political order. And ultimately the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage.
Those are the well-tested, well-proven principles on which we have relied for centuries. The question now is whether judicial “wisdom” may contrive methods by which those solid principles can be circumvented or even discarded.
A clear majority of courts have struck down statutes that affirm opposite-gender marriage only. In their ingenuity and imagination they have constructed a seemingly comprehensive legal structure for this new form of marriage. And yet what is lacking and unaccounted for remains: are laws barring polygamy, or, say the marriage of fathers and daughters, now of doubtful validity? Is “minimal marriage”, where “individuals can have legal marital relationships with more than one person, reciprocally or asymmetrically, themselves determining the sex and number of parties” the blueprint for their design? . . . It would seem so, if we follow the plaintiffs’ logic, that the fundamental right to marriage is based on “the constitutional liberty to select the partner of one’s choice.”
Of course, it is all too easy to dismiss such concerns as absurd or of a kind with the cruel discrimination and ridicule that has been shown toward people attracted to members of their own sex. But the truth concealed in these concerns goes to the heart of our system of limited, consent-based government: those seeking sweeping change must render reasons justifying the change and articulate the principles that they claim will limit this newly fashioned right.
For now, one basic principle remains: the people, acting through their elected representatives, may legitimately regulate marriage by law. This principle is impeded, not advanced, by court decrees based on the proposition that the public cannot have the requisite repose to discuss certain issues. It is demeaning to the democratic process to presume that the voters are not capable of deciding an issue of this sensitivity on decent and rational grounds . . . Freedom embraces the right, indeed the duty, to engage in a rational, civic discourse in order to determine how best to form a consensus to shape the destiny of the Nation and its people.
To read the entire court ruling above, CLICK HERE.
As two activist judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit hailed same-sex "marriage" by ruling against the citizens of Virginia regarding their 2006 definition of natural marriage, another judge on the court panel dissented by reasoning that the ruling must certainly also permit "marriage" of multiple persons of any gender, as well as incestuous marriages.
". . . if the fundamental right to marriage is based on 'the constitutional liberty to select the partner of one’s choice,' as they contend, then that liberty would also extend to individuals seeking state recognition of other types of relationships that States currently restrict, such as polygamous or incestuous relationships." -- Judge Paul Niemeyer, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
The [4th] circuit court has jurisdiction over Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. The panel's decision will not take effect until at least Aug. 18 while circuit clerks defending the state's ban decide whether to appeal to the full appellate court or the Supreme Court.
"I do strongly disagree with the assertion that same-sex marriage is subject to the same constitutional protections as the traditional right to marry," Niemeyer said. "I would reverse the district court's judgment and defer to Virginia's political choice in defining marriage as only between one man and one woman."
The Virginia case, which involves two couples seeking to marry in the state and two couples seeking to have their marriages from other states recognized, now gives the Supreme Court a choice. It can hear the Utah or Oklahoma cases from the 10th Circuit, wait for Virginia's to be appealed, or defer action even longer for other gay marriage cases scheduled for appellate hearings in August, September and beyond.
Because Virginia's new Democratic attorney general, Mark Herring, had refused to defend the state's gay marriage ban, that task was left to circuit court clerks from two counties. Brian Babione, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented one of the clerks, said they were considering their options.
Virginia's laws denying same-sex couples the right to marry or have their marriages recognized are "the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance," the 4th Circuit ruled.
"Civil marriage is one of the cornerstones of our way of life," the majority opinion states. "It allows individuals to celebrate and publicly declare their intentions to form lifelong partnerships, which provide unparalleled intimacy, companionship, emotional support, and security. The choice of whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision that alters the course of an individual's life. Denying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance."
In a bitter dissent, Judge Paul Niemeyer argued that same-sex marriage would lead to recognition of "polygamous or incestuous relationships."
. . . there's no clamor for allowing "incestuous" marriage. But "marriage" doesn't require procreation or even a sexual relationship. If it's viewed as a legal arrangement that bestows certain benefits, why should the law bar, say, two elderly sisters from claiming those benefits? Why should they be prohibited if the goal of "marriage equality" is to allow a person to marry any other person?
. . . Several years ago, an NPR report cited studies indicating that some 50,000 to 100,000 American Muslims live in polygamous marriages -- although of course they are not recognized as such under any state law.
Niemeyer was not advocating for recognition of polygamous marriages. On the contrary, he was warning that the same legal construct used to expand marriage laws to include same-sex unions must logically continue the expansion.
“Over the decades, the Supreme Court has demonstrated that the right to marry is an expansive liberty interest that may stretch to accommodate changing societal norms,” wrote [Judge] Floyd in his [majority 4th Circuit] opinion.
[Liberty Counsel Special Counsel Rena Lindevaldsen, said] “First you have the court proclaiming that the right is ever-expanding, and then you have this language that adults should be free to choose to love who they want to love. We already have challenges to the polygamy bans. We have a movement out there suggesting that two, three, four, five people should be able to come together in the marital union. So this opens that door entirely. Once you’ve opened the door past one man and one woman, which has historical and foundational roots, what’s to say the line can’t be drawn to allow two, three, four and five people to marry?”
“I like to think we could limit it, but from a legal perspective and realistically speaking, once you open the door the door is open,” Lindevaldsen said. “There simply is no reason to now say that three consenting adults, who love each other and want to raise children together, shouldn’t be allowed to marry once we retreat from the definition of marriage as one man and one woman.”
[U.S. 4th Circuit Appeals Court Judge Henry F.] Floyd made the [headline, above] remark while declaring same-sex marriage a constitutional right and dismissing the argument made in favor of Virginia's marriage amendment that it safeguards the need of children to be raised by both a mother and a father.
"The proponents aver that 'children develop best when reared by their married biological parents in a stable family unit,'" wrote Floyd. "They dwell on the importance of 'gender-differentiated parenting' and argue that sanctioning same-sex marriage will deprive children of the benefit of being raised by a mother and a father, who have 'distinct parenting styles.' In essence, the proponents argue that the Virginia Marriage Laws safeguard children by preventing same-sex couples from marrying and starting inferior families."
. . . said Floyd. "For example, as the American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, and Virginia Psychological Association (collectively, the APA) explain in their amicus brief, 'there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation,' and 'the same factors'—including family stability, economic resources, and the quality of parent-child relationships—'are linked to children’s positive development, whether they are raised by heterosexual, lesbian, or gay parents.”
The latest Gay Agenda law sailing through the California legislature will outlaw usage of the terms "husband" and "wife" in regards to marriage law, which (so far) limits the legal union to "people."
When gay marriages began, "The sky did not fall, civilization as we know it did not end." [yet] -- Sen. Mark Leno, homosexual Democrat-San Francisco
For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:
A bill that would strike the traditional definition of marriage from California law was approved by the state Senate on Thursday after the U.S. and state supreme courts allowed same-sex unions to resume last year.
SB1306 would remove from the state Family Code language that marriage must be "between a man and a woman."
"I cannot bring myself, though, to diminish the words 'husband and wife,' and this clearly does that. Throughout history those words have been widely used and accepted," said Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber, the only senator to speak in opposition. "They're kind of sacred terms, I would argue, and by this bill we are diminishing those very important words."
The bill [SB1306] was sent to the Assembly on a 25-10 vote, with only Republicans in opposition. Two Republicans, Anthony Cannella of Ceres and Ted Gaines of Roseville, voted in favor.
Once again, predictions of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia have materialized . . . In ruling that the Utah law banning polygamy is unconstitutional, U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups, cited two Supreme Court decisions: the 2003 ruling favoring sodomy, and this year's ruling favoring same-sex "marriage." The Gay Agenda is proving to be the epitome of the "slippery slope" metaphor.
“Homosexuals and polygamists do have a common interest: the right to be left alone as consenting adults. There is no spectrum of private consensual relations — there is just a right of privacy that protects all people so long as they do not harm others.” -- Attorney Jonathan Turley, plaintiff counsel and law professor at George Washington University
The ruling was a victory for the polygamist Brown family — stars of the reality TV show “Sister Wives” — and other Fundamentalist Mormons who believe polygamy brings exaltation in heaven.
Anne Wilde of the polygamy advocacy group Principle Voices says polygamous families have lived under the threat of arrest for decades and no longer have to worry that “someone will knock on their door and take away their kids” because the ruling decriminalizes polygamy in Utah.
The Utah attorney general’s office has not yet said whether it’ll appeal Waddoups’ decision.
The U.S. District Court, District of Utah, Central Division has ruled that plural marriages do not constitute a crime. While this does not open the door immediately to plural marriage licenses or other rights, it does one thing – families that practice polygamy may not be persecuted by the state as criminals.
In its decision, the court struck down the part of the statute that criminalizes co-habitation between consenting adults. The effect of the decision would also limit future prosecutions of traditional bigamy in cases where individuals have multiple marriage licenses.
Of course, this throws open a door of thousands of other issues like inheritance, and rights of wives and their children, but as the case makes clear – criminalization of polygamy also did not serve to address those more important issues, but served to suppress them.
A federal judge has struck down parts of Utah’s anti-polygamy law as unconstitutional in a case brought by a polygamous star of a reality television series. Months after the Supreme Court bolstered rights of same-sex couples, the Utah case could open a new frontier in the nation’s recognition of once-prohibited relationships.
Judge Waddoups, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, wrote a 91-page decision that reflects — and reflects upon — the nation’s changing attitude toward government regulation of personal affairs and unpopular groups. The Supreme Court supported the power of states to restrict polygamy in an 1879 decision, Reynolds v. United States.
As same-sex marriage has gained popular approval and legal status in recent years, some have hoped — and some feared — that other forms of cohabitation might follow. Justice Antonin Scalia, in his bitter and famous dissent from the 2003 Lawrence case, said the nation was on the verge of the end of legislation based on morality, and was opening the door to legalizing “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.”
After learning of the ruling Saturday afternoon, Marvin Wyler exclaimed "hallelujah" and said polygamy never should have been criminalized in the first place. Wyler — who left The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints more than a decade ago but continues to believe in polygamy — said that in the past polygamists feared legal repercussions for their criminalized lifestyle. The ruling lifts that threat — which surprised Charlette Wyler, a wife of Marvin’s.
But Marvin Wyler also doubted the new court ruling would have a major impact on Hildale [Utah] and adjacent Colorado City, Ariz., collectively known as Short Creek. He didn’t know of the ruling until Saturday afternoon — hours after a polygamous wedding happened in the town — and life would likely continue for most people as usual.
"It won’t be any different," he said.
The limited impact of the ruling was the theme of the day in the community, which seems to have learned to live without much attention to bigamy laws.
U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby's ruling Monday comes three days after he struck down Utah's ban on same-sex marriage.
Shelby said lawyers for the state had offered no evidence that opposite-sex marriage would be affected and that their "fears and speculations are insufficient to justify the State's refusal to dignify the family relationships of its gay and lesbian citizens."
Shelby held a hearing on the matter Monday and denied Utah's request to stay his decision, according to Mary Jane McNamee, his courtroom deputy.
Utah voters approved a law banning same-sex marriage in 2004.
Honest liberals agree that the Supreme Court ruling on "gay marriage" must eventually lead to further court rulings favoring plural marriage (polyamory) at the least. The dissenting court opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, whose much-derided "slippery slope" argument in the Supreme Court Texas sodomy ruling of 2003 predicted this week's ruling, gives insight to the future -- not just the demise of family, but demise of democracy and thus religious liberty.
“I am questioning the propriety, the sanity of having a value-laden decision ... made for the entire society by unelected judges.” — Justice Antonin Scalia, U.S. Supreme Court
In his majority opinion for U.S. v. Windsor, Justice Kennedy argued that the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA], which defines marriage as strictly between one man and one woman, was unconstitutional because it pegs homosexuals as second class citizens. . . .
Anne Wilde, a Mormon fundamentalist and founder of the polygamist rights organization, Principle Rights Coalition, is hopeful that these decisions represent movement towards the decriminalization of polygamy.
Despite their contrasting opinions on other issues, advocates both for and against polygamy view these two [Supreme Court] rulings as instrumental in opening the floodgates for plural marriages.
. . . Mark Goldfeder, a law professor at Emory University, thinks that the two rulings had significant impact on the future of polygamy in the United States. Goldfeder, who specializes in the intersection of law and religion, says that the courts will need to find other justifications to keep anti-polygamy statutes in place.
"It's one hundred percent likely that these polygamist cases will come, but they will no longer turn on whether a relationship is immoral," Goldfeder says. "The court will look at whether these relationships cause third party harm."
Just hours after the court ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional, Joe Darger said he and his family were pleased. Darger, who with his three wives detailed their life in the book "Love Times Three: Our True Story of a Polygamous Marriage," said the ruling should help remedy polygamists’ treatment as "second-class citizens."
Darger added that he believes the decision also will influence the high-profile Brown case, which is pending in Utah before federal Judge Clark Waddoups. In that case, the polygamous Brown family — which is well known from the TV show "Sister Wives" — is suing to strike down the statute that makes bigamy a third-degree felony.
Jonathan Turley, the Washington, D.C.-based lawyer representing the Browns . . . pointed out Justice Anthony Kennedy emphasized the "limited right of the federal government in treating couples differently once they have been recognized as married by a state."
Perhaps the most significant development in regards to polygamy, Turley explained, was the court’s shift away from morality as a justification of law.
"In the United States and indeed throughout the world, belief in the expert has been replaced by the judge moralist," said Scalia, who is the longest-serving member now on the high court. "We have become addicted to abstract moralizing."
. . . Scalia said a change in judicial philosophy occurred in the second half of the 20th century.
"And I am sorry to say that my court was responsible for it," he said. "It was my court that invented the notion of a 'living' Constitution. Beginning with the cruel and unusual punishment clause of our Eighth Amendment, we developed the doctrine that the meaning of the Constitution could change over time."
"About nine terms ago, we held laws against private consensual sodomy, laws that existed in perfect conformity with the Constitution for over 200 years, to be impermissible."
This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.
[The majority opinion] is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere “primary” in its role.
There are many remarkable things about the majority’s merits holding. The first is how rootless and shifting its justifications are. For example, the opinion starts with seven full pages about the traditional power of States to define domestic relations—initially fooling many readers, I am sure, into thinking that this is a federalism opinion. But we are eventually told that “it is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution,” and that “[t]he State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism” because “the State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import.” But no one questions the power of the States to define marriage (with the concomitant conferral of dignity and status), so what is the point of devoting seven pages to describing how long and well established that power is? Even after the opinion has formally disclaimed reliance upon principles of federalism, mentions of “the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage” continue. What to make of this? The opinion never explains. My guess is that the majority, while reluctant to suggest that defining the meaning of “marriage” in federal statutes is unsupported by any of the Federal Government’s enumerated powers, nonetheless needs some rhetorical basis to support its pretense that today’s prohibition of laws excluding same-sex marriage is confined to the Federal Government (leaving the second, state-law shoe to be dropped later, maybe next Term). But I am only guessing.
Equally perplexing are the opinion’s references to “the Constitution’s guarantee of equality.” Near the end of the opinion, we are told that although the “equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes [the] Fifth Amendment [due process] right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved”—what can that mean?—“the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does.” The only possible interpretation of this statement is that the Equal Protection Clause, even the Equal Protection Clause as incorporated in the Due Process Clause, is not the basis for today’s holding. . . .
Moreover, if this is meant to be an equal-protection opinion, it is a confusing one. The opinion does not resolve and indeed does not even mention what had been the central question in this litigation: whether, under the Equal Protection Clause, laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman are reviewed for more than mere rationality. . . .
The majority opinion need not get into the strict-vs.rational-basis scrutiny question, and need not justify its holding under either, because it says that DOMA is unconstitutional as “a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution,” that it violates “basic due process” principles, and that it inflicts an “injury and indignity” of a kind that denies “an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment,” The majority never utters the dread words “substantive due process,” perhaps sensing the disrepute into which that doctrine has fallen, but that is what those statements mean. Yet the opinion does not argue that same-sex marriage is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” . . . a claim that would of course be quite absurd. So would the further suggestion (also necessary, under our substantive-due-process precedents) that a world in which DOMA exists is one bereft of “‘ordered liberty.’”
Some might conclude that this loaf could have used a while longer in the oven. But that would be wrong; it is already overcooked. The most expert care in preparation cannot redeem a bad recipe. The sum of all the Court’s nonspecific hand-waving is that this law is invalid (maybe on equal-protection grounds, maybe on substantive-due process grounds, and perhaps with some amorphous federalism component playing a role) because it is motivated by a “‘bare . . . desire to harm’” couples in same-sex marriages. It is this proposition with which I will therefore engage.
As I have observed before, the Constitution does not forbid the government to enforce traditional moral and sexual norms. . . . I will not swell the U. S. Reports with restatements of that point. It is enough to say that the Constitution neither requires nor forbids our society to approve of same-sex marriage, much as it neither requires nor forbids us to approve of no-fault divorce, polygamy, or the consumption of alcohol. However, even setting aside traditional moral disapproval of same-sex marriage (or indeed same-sex sex), there are many perfectly valid—indeed, downright boring—justifying rationales for this legislation. Their existence ought to be the end of this case. For they give the lie to the Court’s conclusion that only those with hateful hearts could have voted “aye” on this Act. And more importantly, they serve to make the contents of the legislators’ hearts quite irrelevant: “It is a familiar principle of constitutional law that this Court will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive.” Or at least it was a familiar principle. By holding to the contrary, the majority has declared open season on any law that (in the opinion of the law’s opponents and any panel of like-minded federal judges) can be characterized as mean-spirited.
The majority concludes that the only motive for this Act was the “bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group.” Bear in mind that the object of this condemnation is not the legislature of some once-Confederate Southern state (familiar objects of the Court’s scorn . . .), but our respected coordinate branches, the Congress and Presidency of the United States. Laying such a charge against them should require the most extraordinary evidence, and I would have thought that every attempt would be made to indulge a more anodyne explanation for the statute. The majority does the opposite—affirmatively concealing from the reader the arguments that exist in justification. It makes only a passing mention of the “arguments put forward” by the Act’s defenders, and does not even trouble to paraphrase or describe them. I imagine that this is because it is harder to maintain the illusion of the Act’s supporters as unhinged members of a wild-eyed lynch mob when one first describes their views as they see them.
To choose just one of these defenders’ arguments, DOMA avoids difficult choice-of-law issues that will now arise absent a uniform federal definition of marriage. . . . Imagine a pair of women who marry in Albany and then move to Alabama, which does not “recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex.” When the couple files their next federal tax return, may it be a joint one? Which State’s law controls, for federal-law purposes: their State of celebration (which recognizes the marriage) or their State of domicile (which does not)? (Does the answer depend on whether they were just visiting in Albany?) Are these questions to be answered as a matter of federal common law, or perhaps by borrowing a State’s choice-of-law rules? If so, which State’s? And what about States where the status of an out-of-state same-sex marriage is an unsettled question under local law? . . . DOMA avoided all of this uncertainty by specifying which marriages would be recognized for federal purposes. That is a classic purpose for a definitional provision.
Further, DOMA preserves the intended effects of prior legislation against then-unforeseen changes in circumstance. When Congress provided (for example) that a special estate-tax exemption would exist for spouses, this exemption reached only opposite-sex spouses—those being the only sort that were recognized in any State at the time of DOMA’s passage. When it became clear that changes in state law might one day alter that balance, DOMA’s definitional section was enacted to ensure that state-level experimentation did not automatically alter the basic operation of federal law, unless and until Congress made the further judgment to do so on its own. That is not animus—just stabilizing prudence. Congress has hardly demonstrated itself unwilling to make such further, revising judgments upon due deliberation.
The Court mentions none of this. Instead, it accuses the Congress that enacted this law and the President who signed it of something much worse than, for example, having acted in excess of enumerated federal powers—or even having drawn distinctions that prove to be irrational. Those legal errors may be made in good faith, errors though they are. But the majority says that the supporters of this Act acted with malice—with the “purpose to disparage and to injure” same-sex couples. It says that the motivation for DOMA was to “demean,” to “impose inequality,” to “impose . . . a stigma,” to deny people “equal dignity,” to brand gay people as “unworthy,” and to “humiliat[e]” their children.
I am sure these accusations are quite untrue. To be sure (as the majority points out), the legislation is called the Defense of Marriage Act. But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” ”injure,” “degrade,” ”demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence—indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.
The penultimate sentence of the majority’s opinion is a naked declaration that “[t]his opinion and its holding are confined” to those couples “joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State.” I have heard such “bald, unreasoned disclaimer[s]” before. Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 604. When the Court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, we were assured that the case had nothing, nothing at all to do with “whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” Now we are told that DOMA is invalid because it “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects,” —with an accompanying citation of Lawrence. It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.
. . . In my opinion . . . the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’” couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status. . . .
In sum, that Court which finds it so horrific that Congress irrationally and hatefully robbed same-sex couples of the “personhood and dignity” which state legislatures conferred upon them, will of a certitude be similarly appalled by state legislatures’ irrational and hateful failure to acknowledge that “personhood and dignity” in the first place. As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe.
By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition. Henceforth those challengers will lead with this Court’s declaration that there is “no legitimate purpose” served by such a law, and will claim that the traditional definition has “the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure” the “personhood and dignity” of same-sex couples. The majority’s limiting assurance will be meaningless in the face of language like that, as the majority well knows. That is why the language is there. The result will be a judicial distortion of our society’s debate over marriage—a debate that can seem in need of our clumsy “help” only to a member of this institution.
As to that debate: Few public controversies touch an institution so central to the lives of so many, and few inspire such attendant passion by good people on all sides. Few public controversies will ever demonstrate so vividly the beauty of what our Framers gave us, a gift the Court pawns today to buy its stolen moment in the spotlight: a system of government that permits us to rule ourselves. Since DOMA’s passage, citizens on all sides of the question have seen victories and they have seen defeats. There have been plebiscites, legislation, persuasion, and loud voices—in other words, democracy. . . .
In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.
But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.
To read the entire Supreme Court justice's writing above, CLICK HERE.
Much to the chagrin of homosexualists, other liberals won't shut up about rights to polygamy, polyamory, pedophilia, etc. Sexual revolutionaries have long strategized to corrupt the culture slowly, one abominable step at a time, but many extremists now believe the public is gullible enough to swallow it all immediately.
"[It's the] perfect moment to ensure that we become visible in all our diverse, complicated beauty. There's not one right way to do polyamory, and there's not one demographic that does it. Let's celebrate that." -- Sierra Black, polyamorist
. . . Two-parent families are not the reality for millions of American children. Divorce, remarriage, surrogate parents, extended relatives, and other diverse family arrangements mean families already come in all sizes—why not recognize that legally?
[If a woman] wants to marry a man with three other wives, that’s her damn choice.
. . . All marriages deserve access to the support and resources they need to build happy, healthy lives, regardless of how many partners are involved. . . .
The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
"If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" [Justice Sonia] Sotomayor asked before referencing polygamy and incest among adults.
Olson responded by saying that polygamy raises questions "about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody — it is an entirely different thing."
An Illinois state representative is under fire after he compared legal same-sex marriage to laws allowing for polygamy or marriages between adults and minors in an e-mail response to a constituent.
State Rep. Tom Morrison, a Republican representing suburban Palatine, wrote early Wednesday in the e-mail obtained by HuffPost that "if you are for the re-definition of marriage to remove the gender distinction of one male and one female, then where would you draw the line?"
On the one hand, it's great to have the media taking a look at polyamory. I never tire of telling the world how much I love my people and how wonderful the lives we share are. We're healthy and happy and having a good time. That's a great thing to show the world: Look, here's an idea that is really good for some people.
It's especially good to show this side of things because so many people perceive polyamory as a problem. It's weird, it's deviant, it's immoral, it means you have commitment problems or low self-esteem. You can do it if you must, but it has to be a shameful secret. Don't let the kids find out. Don't let your mom catch you. What do the neighbors think? Etc.
On the other hand, the media isn't simply holding up a mirror to the reality of polyamory. They're shaping the cultural perception of what polyamory is and who does it by carefully choosing the stories they tell.
. . . More important than merely presenting a more diverse image of polyamory to the media and our social circles is embracing a richer, more diverse model of relationships and community. . . .
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
Those arguing for "marriage equality" at the U.S. Supreme Court this week should be ashamed of themselves.
They're just as guilty of discrimination as those dastardly conservatives still bitterly clinging to their guns and their religion. Why no argument for polygamy, polyamory and other forms of diversity? Why are they only defending their exclusive definition of diversity?
How dare those seeking to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Clinton, or Proposition 8 ratified by the people of California, stop at just redefining marriage to include two consenting adults of the same gender. Why do these people believe they have the authority to draw a moralistic line against any consenting adults, and thus force their moral standard upon the rest of us?
If the government has no power to discriminate against relationships involving two consenting adults of the same gender, then why does it have the power to discriminate against multiple consenting adults of any gender?
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
. . . within the ranks of the UUA over the past few years, there has been some quiet unrest concerning a small but activist group that vociferously supports polyamory. That is to say “the practice of loving and relating intimately to more than one other person at a time,” according to a mission statement by Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness (UUPA). The UUPA “encourages spiritual wholeness regarding polyamory,” including the right of polyamorous people to have their unions blessed by a minister.
UUA headquarters says it has no official position on polyamory. “Official positions are established at general assembly and never has this issue been brought to general assembly,” a spokeswoman says.
But as the issue of same-sex marriage heads to the Supreme Court, many committed Unitarians think the denomination should have a position, which is that polyamory activists should just sit down and be quiet. For one thing, poly activists are seen as undermining the fight for same-sex marriage. The UUA has officially supported same-sex marriage, the spokeswoman says, “since 1979, with tons of resolutions from the general assembly.”
